User:Jameshu1/Husky Union Building/Angelita Cecilia Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jameshu1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jameshu1/Husky_Union_Building?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Husky Union Building
 * Husky Union Building

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it has been updated to add more information to the content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, my peer had added more details information.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it has included a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, my peer had provided more information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, the content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes, the content added is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think it would be better if my peer can provide more information about the main function of each place and floors.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes, I think it deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the content does not appear heavily biases toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think no.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I am not sure about that.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Not all, there is no reference for the second paragraph.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, there is no reference for the second paragraph.
 * Are the sources current? The references are not complete.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The references are not complete.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? yes, I am sure that there are better sources available such as UW's website or UW's library.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some of the links works, but there is some sentence or paragraph which has no reference.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it's well written and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are not many grammatical issues, but I think you can consider correcting the comma slice.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but I think it would be better to make it in a point to make it looks more easier to read.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Overall Impressions[edit]

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article (is the article more complete?) Yes, the content has improved compared to the previous article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The background history information of the building.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think he can put some additional information regarding the function of each place or floors.